"Many theists find resources to defend their beliefs in the important literary and apologetic work of C.S. Lewis. There is much to be said for Lewis"s popular style, rhetoric, and incisiveness. It is persuasive and pleasurable reading, and perfectly effective when we are in what we might call the popular room. But philosophers and laymen sometimes"perhaps often, these days"find the standards on cogent argumentation raised, and indeed want them raised.

Consider, for instance, the powerful critical assessment, by academic philosophers, of the currently popular arguments against theistic belief. Popular atheological arguments wither under such scrutiny.[1] Of course, serious atheists may be unimpressed. The standards for atheological argumentation also go much higher than anything imagined in Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and a host of other popular writers.

The work of atheistic thinkers such as John Mackie, Jordan Howard Sobel and William Rowe, for example, is much more powerful, if much less popular. So, how well does theistic belief do when the standards and expectations on good reasoning are at their highest? How well does religious belief do when, as David Lewis described it, we are in the philosophy room?

In the philosophy room, the otherwise impressive work of C.S. Lewis is much less helpful. His work will not serve to defend theistic belief in the face of the sheer critical power and breadth of, say, John Mackie"s The Miracle of Theism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982) or Jordan Sobel"s Logic and Theism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)."

"Many theists find resources to defend their beliefs in the important literary and apologetic work of C.S. Lewis. There is much to be said for Lewis"s popular style, rhetoric, and incisiveness. It is persuasive and pleasurable reading, and perfectly effective when we are in what we might call the popular room. But philosophers and laymen sometimes"perhaps often, these days"find the standards on cogent argumentation raised, and indeed want them raised.

Consider, for instance, the powerful critical assessment, by academic philosophers, of the currently popular arguments against theistic belief. Popular atheological arguments wither under such scrutiny.[1] Of course, serious atheists may be unimpressed. The standards for atheological argumentation also go much higher than anything imagined in Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and a host of other popular writers.

The work of atheistic thinkers such as John Mackie, Jordan Howard Sobel and William Rowe, for example, is much more powerful, if much less popular. So, how well does theistic belief do when the standards and expectations on good reasoning are at their highest? How well does religious belief do when, as David Lewis described it, we are in the philosophy room?

In the philosophy room, the otherwise impressive work of C.S. Lewis is much less helpful. His work will not serve to defend theistic belief in the face of the sheer critical power and breadth of, say, John Mackie"s The Miracle of Theism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982) or Jordan Sobel"s Logic and Theism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)."

I've always preferred Chesterton myself... I will have to look into Plantinga though.